Categories
Web

Up Down browsers

A new beta version of Firefox is out. Chances are if you’re running beta 3, you already received a notice of beta 4. The new release has done interesting things with the toolbar. Unfortunately, it may have some roughness with SVG embedded using the object element. We’ll see.

On the down side, Microsoft’s new IE8 beta does not work with the Netflix Watch Now feature, regardless of whether you’re emulating IE7 or not. It’s that whole modifying the underlying operating system thing. Netflix keeps wanting to upgrade the movie object, and the upgrade keeps failing. You have to de-install IE8 to get the Netflix Watch Now feature to work.

More time to test, I guess.

Categories
Diversity

Perception

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Wired.com:

At least one heckler thought the backlash was because of Lacy’s gender instead of her questions. MyBlogLog founder Eric Marcoullier, who twittered a few swipes against Lacy during the talk, told Wired.com after the keynote that Lacy’s gender might have been behind the reaction of the geeky masses.

“I think there’s some degree of sexism,” he said. “Because she’s a chick, her ingratiating nature is taken as ass-kissing. If it were some guy at Forbes asking the same questions in the same manner, we just would have thought he was drawing Mark out.”

I found it interesting that few people commented on the fact that Zuckerberg is an uninteresting, colorless individual, who has been variously accused of stealing code and spying on his clients, and in this case, tossed the interviewer to the wolves rather than suck up to his own responsibility. Seriously, would the audience have been more comfortable if Lackey had balls, and scratched them during the talk?

Ohmigod, she twirled her hair during the talk! She’s flirting with Zuckerberg! Here’s a clue for you guys: women with curly hair often twirl it when they talk. It’s not a mating move.

I watched the video and did not think Lacey was “bad”. I didn’t think anything about it was “good”, either. This was obvious a canned interview situation, probably vetted by the Facebook PR people to make sure Zuckerberg doesn’t say anything outside of the box.

If there’s a failure anywhere, it was this type of situation being staged as a “keynote”. Fake interviews to make the “interviewee” seem more personable, one of us, lack honesty, whether they’re deemed successful or not. Did people really expect this to be a true interview? I guess there is one born every minute.

All in all, everything I’ve heard about SxSW this year tells us this party is over. Oh, and if women are going to interview demi-gods like Zuckerberg, they better be butch while they’re on stage.

Categories
Weblogging

Stormhoek: Shiny, happy people do Grapes 2.0

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Talk about webloggers being had…

Frank Paynter had a couple of odd posts about Stormhoek, the South African wine made famous by weblogging.

It would seem that Stormhoek was really nothing more than a concept in search of a vineyard in 2003, and now that some level of success has been reached, is scratching the vineyard. Or is that the true story?

According to another story, something calling itself “Stormhoek” in South Africa is trying to raise capital, by again depending on social media. This time, instead of hosting a dinner with free booze, the folks are asking people to buy a vine:

First, buy a vine. Then ride on the coat tails of Stormhoek’s powerful marketing campaign: blog about your purchase, send out a press release, tell your existing customer base about it. You will be aligning yourself with a feel-good story, that has a proven viral marketing value, and at the same time you will be doing some very, very good for the local wine industry.

But who is the real Stormhoek? And how powerful is that “viral marketing value” if the prime instigator behind the campaign is in Texas, snacking on Bar-B-Que, lecturing on marketing on a trip sponsored by the people who seemingly own the Stormhoek name, but not a drop of the grape?

From Grape Wine News:

The Stormhoek website is handling the situation with what one must assume is panache, and a continuation of its mastery of internet communication, by almost ignoring the financial collapse of the brand’s owners. It’s blog format has brief, downplaying coverage, wedged between rather longer entries on a marketing guru and a cartoonist. ‘While the issues are being sorted in the UK’, it says with rather splendid airiness, ‘back at the vineyard, we are busy thinking about harvest and the more mundane things we need to do to get wines made and in the hands of customers around the world.’

mundane things we need to do to get wines made… Like, having grapes?

Update

According to a UK trade publication, Off License, Hugh Macleod and the two who owned the original company that went bankrupt, Orbital, will be continuing the marketing campaign. There is no mention of the fact that the Stormhoek “name” is no longer associated with any actual vineyard. Or at least the new owner of Orbital’s assets, Origin’s Stormhoek is not associated with any vineyard.

One must be excused for displaying a sour face when hearing about the “success” of the Stormhoek marketing effort, after trying to wade through the mess that is Stormhoek. However, I won’t make a comment on the lack of transparency associated with this issue, because I’ve been reliably informed that the players associated with Stormhoek never promised transparency. It was another Web 2.0 pundit who promised transparency. The Stormhoek Web 2.0 pundit promised something that isn’t as interesting.

I frequently get my Web 2.0 pundits mixed up. It’s a failing of mine.

In the meantime, may I suggest a local wine? It’s not as chi-chi clever, but at least you know you’re paying for the grape, not the meme.

Second Update

An older article on the origins of Stormhoek confuses the issue of what is “Stormhoek” even more. Money quote:

Deal with it quickly and diffuse the situation politely. After a while the trolls will get bored and go home.

Categories
XHTML/HTML

Run for the web

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

A gentleman from the W3C was kind enough to point me to a newly tracked issue for the HTML5 working group related to namespaces in HTML5, entered by James Graham. I’m not a player in this game, because I can continue to use XHTML 1.1 until they pry it out of my cold, dead browser. However, it is good to see some concerted effort in adding SVG and MathML to HTML5, as well as XHTML5. The two are nothing more than serialization formats, and it shouldn’t matter which we use. However, as it stands now, the data model changes based on the serialization, and that’s not a particularly good thing.

In the meantime, XHTML is getting more kicks because of the draconian error handling. Seriously, I’d love to know who coined this term, so we can take them out behind the barn. Whether the comment was facetious or not, Ian Hickson’s statement that the great thing about XML’s well-formedness requirements is that this kind of thing can’t happen, because the author would catch this kind of error straight away, is true. Errors don’t creep in, they trumpet for attention. But, to each their own. I’m not a player in this game.

Categories
Specs

Accessibility, Microformats, and rule by mob

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Bob DuCharme has a guest post by the Chief Technology Strategist for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Sarah Bourne, on accessibility issues associated with microformats. She mentions both the abbr and include design patterns that others, most commonly Joe Clark, have brought up in the past.

Ms. Bourne also has an interesting note to make on the nature of the microformat effort:

I suspect that the problems with microformats lie in the fact that they are being developed by a voluntary group instead of an established standards body. The community structure certainly leads to quicker decisions, but they are not as well vetted with a broader audience. Conflicts may not appear until their decisions have been put into practice.

Standards by general consensus rarely works out. For instance, the HTML5 working group has 504 members. How the heck can you get anything accomplished when you have 504 members? What happens with a group this size is either nothing happens, or a few of the more vocal, and assertive, members end up dominating the group–in which case you don’t really have a standards working group: you have George and Jane, and the backup singers.

Update Ms. Bourne actually linked to Isofarro not Joe Clark. Isofarro features Joe’s micropatronage badge prominently in the header. I thought the site was Joe’s once, myself.